"OK, so on the one hand, we have the unimpeachable evidence of astronauts failing to use the word "amazing" in relation to stars as being cast-iron proof that an entire moon landing programme was hoaxed."

So you know I didn't make this claim. You simply made it up, for absolutely no reason?

Care to explain this?

You said it was "quite logical". Presumably, "quite logical" that if they didn't use the word amazing, then they can't have actually seen any stars. So, it's quite logical to infer that you are putting this forth as evidence: otherwise, why mention it?

So, is it part of your evidence that Apollo was faked, or not? If it is, then quit your whining. If it isn't, stop bleating on about it.

Quote

It's a point I've offered up for discussion.

Well, it got discussed. Unless you have any other insights into the non-use of the word "amazing", I guess that particular discussion is over.

Quote

You have no valid rebuttal, it seems.

One minute it's a point you offered up for discussion. Next it's something that requires a rebuttal, which infers that you have indeed offered forth something as evidence. Well, which is it?

Quote

You made the comparison, and I took up the issue of independent validation.

So why did you make that comparison at all?

I compared the "point for discussion/"might-be-evidence-might-not-be-evidence" that you raised (lack of a particular adjective used in relation to the stars), against the congruence between an Apollo 16 EVA photo, and photos taken from orbit by LRO, and asked viewers of the thread to draw their own conclusions as to which constitutes better evidence. That is all I did. So, which do you think constitutes better evidence? Surely you're capable of looking at the evidence I presented and actually discussing it, rather than running away from it?

Let's start over. Here is the evidence in favour of Apollo that I presented. Let's forget about what constitutes the better evidence for a moment, and just debate this evidence that I've presented in favour of Apollo.

Remembering your own words: A specific point has to stand or fall - based on its own merits. You bring up a completely irrelevant, separate issue, instead of properly debating the specific issue. This is ridiculous.

OK, let's stick to this specific issue. Do the two images show the same scene or not?

Quote

"Amazing detail"?

Little dots and obscure splotches, wowee!!

No, we're talking about recognizable features and rocks. Look at the actual images presented. Do they represent the same scene, or not?

How amusing that you would say such a thing because they proved beyond any doubt that you are wrong! The images are on the same level at proving you wrong as those photos of people bending their knees in pressurized spacesuits, a feat you've claimed, was impossible.

You said it was "quite logical". Presumably, "quite logical" that if they didn't use the word amazing, then they can't have actually seen any stars. So, it's quite logical to infer that you are putting this forth as evidence: otherwise, why mention it?

I've already told you why I mentioned it - because it is a valid point of discussion, and it is indeed "quite logical".

A point can be valid and logical, yet not regarded as 'proof'. It can simply be a point of discussion.

You seem to think each and every point of discussion must be considered 'proof' of a moon hoax, or it has no validity

That is utterly ludicrous.

postbaguk, on 23 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

So, is it part of your evidence that Apollo was faked, or not? If it is, then quit your whining. If it isn't, stop bleating on about it.

I'm not whining, I'm just trying to explain why a point can be raised without needing to be 'proof'. I'm not sure if you can grasp this concept, so let's go over it again...

Do you understand that a point can be raised, even if it is not 'proof'? It can.

Do you understand the reason I raised the point? Because I consider it a valid, logical point, which makes it worth bringing up

As for being 'evidence', that is a different thing than 'proof'. Do you understand that? If not, look it up.

I consider it circumstantial evidence of a moon hoax. Do you understand what that is? If not, look it up.

That covers it. I hope it's finally clear to you.

postbaguk, on 23 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Well, it got discussed. Unless you have any other insights into the non-use of the word "amazing", I guess that particular discussion is over.

No, I made my point, Since you don't have anything to add, let's move on

postbaguk, on 23 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

One minute it's a point you offered up for discussion. Next it's something that requires a rebuttal, which infers that you have indeed offered forth something as evidence. Well, which is it?

First - it is a point I offered up for discussion.

Second - you obviously felt it required a rebuttal, since you made one (which failed to hold up).

It's not a case of one or the other. A point of discussion can also require a rebuttal.

postbaguk, on 23 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

I compared the "point for discussion/"might-be-evidence-might-not-be-evidence" that you raised (lack of a particular adjective used in relation to the stars), against the congruence between an Apollo 16 EVA photo, and photos taken from orbit by LRO, and asked viewers of the thread to draw their own conclusions as to which constitutes better evidence. That is all I did. So, which do you think constitutes better evidence? Surely you're capable of looking at the evidence I presented and actually discussing it, rather than running away from it?

I know why you compared the two issues, and I've explained why it doesn't work. They are two distinct, seperate issues. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

I guess I'm running away from apples and oranges..

postbaguk, on 23 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

Let's start over. Here is the evidence in favour of Apollo that I presented. Let's forget about what constitutes the better evidence for a moment, and just debate this evidence that I've presented in favour of Apollo.

Remembering your own words: A specific point has to stand or fall - based on its own merits. You bring up a completely irrelevant, separate issue, instead of properly debating the specific issue. This is ridiculous.

OK, let's stick to this specific issue. Do the two images show the same scene or not?

No, we're talking about recognizable features and rocks. Look at the actual images presented. Do they represent the same scene, or not?

Of course they do. I've never said otherwise. My point was - to compare NASA images to other NASA images is meaningless, since it isn't independent validation.

Can you imagine NASA being stupid enough to show two different images of the same area? Please...

Can you imagine NASA being stupid enough to show two different images of the same area? Please...

Can you imagine how stupid it would have been to spend billions of dollars to hoax moon missions when such hoaxes could have been easily revealed? But as it was, no such hoax occurred and nations around the globe have not only tracked the Apollo moon missions, but photographed the Apollo landing sites as well.

How amusing that you would say such a thing because they proved beyond any doubt that you are wrong! The images are on the same level at proving you wrong as those photos of people bending their knees in pressurized spacesuits, a feat you've claimed, was impossible.

Once again...

They are NOT pressurized spacesuits shown in those two images!

Not a chance.

The second image was from a video, which showed someone doing deep knee bends.

Of course they do. I've never said otherwise. My point was - to compare NASA images to other NASA images is meaningless, since it isn't independent validation.

Can you imagine NASA being stupid enough to show two different images of the same area? Please...

Great! The photos match. Unfortunately, this raises problems for Hoax Believers. Why do they match? As I see it there are only 2 possible scenarios from a hoax point of view.

1. The Apollo sets were deliberately constructed to resemble the lunar surface as accurately as possible, using Lunar Orbiter imagery.

The difficulty of this approach is the gargantuan size of the project, and the size of the sets required.

2. Subsequent photos have been doctored to resemble the Apollo images.

Again, even if this was technically possible (which I doubt), this would be a huge project requiring the silent cooperation of everyone involved in the project.

So which method was used? Why? More importantly, how? How was it possible to do such a thing, without anyone ever finding out about it? It can't have been done using scale models, since we have so much video footage of the astronauts showing them moving long distances away from the rover. We can tie these in with the high-resolution Hasselblad images, and we can tie those in to the orbital imagery.

The second image was from a video, which showed someone doing deep knee bends.

Link to video...

Now, watch the part right after those knee bends.

Look at his right hand. Notice anything?

His right hand is fully closed in a fist!

You think he can make a fist with a 3.7 psi pressurized glove?

I sure hope you know the correct answer to that.

So essentially your "argument" is simply argument from incredulence. You have no proof the suit is not pressurized. And on top of that you are somehow smarter than all the engineers that designed it. Let me guess, you're basing your ignorance on the gardening glove experiment? You'd be funny if you didn't look like such a joke.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

So essentially your "argument" is simply argument from incredulence. You have no proof the suit is not pressurized. And on top of that you are somehow smarter than all the engineers that designed it. Let me guess, you're basing your ignorance on the gardening glove experiment? You'd be funny if you didn't look like such a joke.

You have no proof the suit IS pressurized, specifically as required for that environment! That's the first claim, it's your burden to prove that, first of all!

Why haven't you done that?

So far, you've got a 1960's video which makes no claims about properly pressurized suits being used. I've found several documents which are far more recent, and they point out mobility as a problem.

You have no proof the suit IS pressurized! That's the first claim, it's your burden to prove that first of all!

Why haven't you done that?

Not my claim. More fun to watch you make a fool of yourself.
Besides, YOU are the one making a claim that it is impossible to make those movements in a pressurized suit. Any proof of that would be nice any time now.

Edited by frenat, 29 March 2013 - 12:27 AM.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

You have no proof the suit IS pressurized! That's the first claim, it's your burden to prove that first of all!

Why haven't you done that?

Actually, it's you who claims that its impossible for a pressurised suit to perform a deep knee bend. A claim uusupported by mere niceties like facts and evidence. These videos and photos of pressurized suits doing just what you claim to be impossible should set alarm bells going in the mind of someone who is debating in good faith and following evidence rather than trying to shoehorn facts to suit their deeply rooted beliefs. This is just another example that proves you don't care about the truth, or about learning, or about admitting you've made an error. You only care about not being seen to lose the debate. Your reaction to counter evidence presented to you proves this. A genuine, objective, open-minded truth seeker would say "Wow! I didn't know about that. I'll do some more digging and find out about this." Instead, you try reversing the burden of proof, and simply refuse to rationally and objectively re-assess your position.

Reasons? You've emotionally bought in to the hoax theory and lack the moral fibre to admit that any of the"evidence" you've presented is dubious.

Contrast and compare to how most contributors on here refer to the laser reflectors. It is no longer presented as proof, where it may have in the past. It's presented as evidence, since there is the albeit small chance that the reflectors could have been placed remotely. That's a sign of a genuine objectivity in assessing the evidence, rather than an approach hampered by emotional attachment.

Try it. You might like it. Admit you're wrong on the spacesuit issue. Doesnt mean you have to admit Apollo did happen. Do you have the courage to admit when your arguments fail, or are you really here just to pull our collective pud?